Often, the consultant, whether as an attending physician or as a non-treating expert, is encouraged to adopt the lawyer`s position. The only position that medical consultants should defend is their professional opinion, which is the conclusion drawn on the basis of their examination of all the facts presented to them in the light of their professional training and experience in the matter. Medical experts should not defend the patient or the position of the party who detained them, but only for their best and most objective analysis and understanding of the facts and implications of the facts in the case. If this professional analysis mainly supports the position of the reluctant party, the expert is likely to be engaged during the dispute. If this is not the case, it is likely that the selected party will move on and stop using the expert. We have expertise in neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuroradiology, neuropsychology and all supportive neurological therapies. Re:Cognition Health`s forensic team is comprised of leading UK brain injury specialists with extensive medical experience. Our experts have contributed to several high-profile personal injury cases and we are proud to partner with leading law firms and bar associations. The other possible role could be that of a non-dealing expert. An expert witness, professional witness or forensic expert is a witness who, on the basis of his or her education, training, skills or experience, is presumed to have expertise and expertise in a particular field beyond that of the average person, so that others can formally and legally rely on scientific opinion, technical or other professional opinion of the witness within the scope of his professional knowledge.

In federal courts, the standards for the admissibility of expert testimony have become clearer as they have evolved over a series of cases, beginning with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993, which led to the so-called Daubert standard.3,4 This requires experts to link their findings to established scientific evidence. An expert opinion that is not supported by scientific evidence (the « reliability » requirement) or that is not clearly related to the facts of the case (the « relevance » requirement) may be excluded. The Daubert standard is accepted today in most, but not all, state courts. However, the criteria of the Daubert standard should be considered as a minimum basis for any expert testimony. Re:Cognition Health`s forensic experts also offer educational presentations to lawyers to present and explain the latest knowledge on clinical and imaging innovations and technologies. Neurologists can play several different roles in legal proceedings.1 The most common is that of attending physician. While a factual witness is a person who has knowledge of what happened, i.e. an attending physician is usually also referred to as an « expert » in his or her field, as the « facts » of his or her findings, diagnoses, and treatments are based on his or her expertise.

The consultant should discuss their specific role with the designated lawyer. Opportunities include direct client investigation; Test; preparation of a report; advice on the case case, medication or cross-examination of the other party`s experts; and counter-statements. Topics may include or exclude mechanism of injury, pathophysiology, treatment needs (past, current and future), medical necessity and relevance, as well as cost of treatment and life expectancy. It may be necessary to divide specific problems into direct, pre-existing and subsequent pathologies. It can be expected that the court-appointed lawyer will want to discuss all the issues under consideration. Consultants should choose a fee structure that they are happy to share with a jury. It is useful to know what other local experts are calculating. The consultant can decide where to charge within this range. Charges should never be laid on a conditional basis, depending on the outcome of the case. Fees are based on the consultant`s time, not their opinion.

Time spent should be carefully tracked and used effectively so that advisors can defend their charges when the matter is cross-examined. The lawyer may ask the mandated lawyer to raise the issue of fees in his or her direct testimony, thereby reducing the impact of the issue on cross-examination. The highly qualified expert has nearly 30 years of experience in pediatric neurology. He received his DEC in Health Sciences from Marianopolis College before obtaining his Bachelor`s and MDCM degrees in Physiology from McGill University. He then completed an internship and residency in pediatrics as well as a neurological residency and fellowships in EMG, EEG and increased potential at the Montreal Children`s Hospital. He also completed a fellowship in molecular/medical. I have used their 3T brain scans and expert opinions in neuroradiology, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry and neurology and have always been impressed with the quality and timeliness of the medical legal service I receive from Re:Cognition Health. Ben Posford, Partner and Head of Catastrophic Injuries, Osbornes Solicitors LLP The adversarial process raises important considerations of professional ethics. The ability to effectively set aside bias, bias and pressure from the reluctant party, insurer or patient to independently examine the facts of the case is the basis of professionalism in the forensic field as in any medicine. This basis allows the professional to feel comfortable with the same methodology and to draw the same conclusions, regardless of which side holds the expert back.

This expert in neurology and headache medicine received her bachelor`s degree in neuroscience from UCLA and her doctorate in medicine from Florida International University. She then completed an internal medicine residency at UC Irvine and a neurology residency at LAC+ USC Medical Center. She is active in her field as a research scientist and a member of the American Headache Society and the American Academy of Neurology. She previously served as administrative assistant to John Muir OB-GYN. In all legal disputes, whether civil or criminal, the procedure is adversarial. One party initiates or initiates a lawsuit, and then each party tries to establish its position while discrediting that of the « adversary » in the eyes of the trier of fact, the body responsible for determining the outcome, whether a judge or a jury. This adversarial aspect of the forensic arena is probably the most troubling and uncomfortable for doctors and probably for everyone except lawyers. Physicians may be concerned that the forensic field may interfere with their professional conduct as it takes them beyond their familiar area of practice to adopt different rules, procedures, and powers. However, there are important reasons for neurologists to consider accepting medical legal advice. The first and most obvious is that neurological patients usually need their doctor`s intervention, as the patient may be involved in litigation related to their neurological injury, illness, or treatment.

Our biannual conference for lawyers in October 2015 provided the first UK dedicated physician conference for lawyers dealing with complex diagnostic medical issues in the forensic field. Many doctors assume that, in medico-legal situations, they are obliged to express their opinion with absolute certainty. Other physicians may fear that expressing an opinion is less likely to lead to misunderstandings about a complex topic, or leave them open to professional criticism and possibly censorship. In most cases, it is necessary for the opinions of medical experts to be presented with a « reasonable level of medical certainty or probability », which in practice means « more likely than not ». This may be a somewhat vague standard, but while the legal process seeks to establish justice in light of truth, it has developed practical mechanisms to achieve this goal that are not always very obvious to common sense or medical culture. Responding to lawyers` inquiries about patients or providing independent consultations in court proceedings can present unique challenges, particularly when special reports are required or when sworn testimony is required. Although the judicial procedure is adversarial, the role of the medical adviser, whether as an attending physician or an independent expert, is not to plead for one side or the other or to convince the trier of fact, but to present his professional opinion in a clear and concise manner. The American Academy of Neurology published an opinion on qualifications and guidelines for the medical expert in 2005. Following professional practice guidelines allows the neurologist to participate effectively and ethically in the legal process. The larger the pool of neurologists who can be consulted on legal issues, the more balanced expertise the legal system will have. What sets us apart from other forensic expert providers is that we understand the legal framework within which our clients operate and provide consistent communication and competent advice at all times.

Les commentaires sont fermés.